¹ The current official draft text for the reform of civil liability was produced by the French Ministry of Justice in 2017, but no legislation has been introduced so far to give effect to them. For a discussion of these reform proposals, see Borghetti, J.-S. and Whittaker, S., French Civil Liability in Comparative Perspective (Oxford 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A private members’ bill was introduced in 2020. Earlier proposals were made first by groups of academics and others under Pierre Catala in 2005 and then by François Terré in 2008.

² [1972A] C.L.J. 247–59. Jack Hamson replied in “The Moral Law and Professor Tunc” [1973] C.L.J. 52, 52–55, to which Tunc responded in A. Tunc, “Accident Victim Compensation and the Moral Law” [1973] C.L.J. 241. Hamson then responded in C.J. Hamson, [1973] C.L.J. 244.

³ 5th ed. (Paris 1957–60); 6th ed. (Paris 1965–83).

⁴ A. Tunc and S. Tunc, Le droit des États-Unis d'Amérique: sources et techniques (Paris 1955), and A. Tunc and S. Tunc, Le système constitutionnelle des États-Unis d'Amérique (Paris 1954), 2 volumes.

⁵ Escola v Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 150 P.2d. 436 (Cal. 1944).

⁶ Columbia University Council for Research in The Social Sciences, Report by the Committee to Study Compensation for Automobile Accidents (Philadelphia 1932). See also F.P. Grad, “Recent Developments in Automobile Accident Compensation” (1950) 50 Colum.L.Rev. 300.

⁷ See A.T. von Mehren, “André Tunc (1917–1999)” (2000) Revue internationale de droit comparé 13, 15–16. The mutual influence is seen by the scope given to French tort law in A.T. von Mehren, The Civil Law System: Cases and Materials for the Comparative Study of Law (Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1957).

⁸ C.J. Hamson, Executive Discretion and Judicial Control: An Aspect of the French Conseil d'Etat (London 1954) with a French translation published by LGDJ in 1958.

⁹ J.A. Jolowicz, “Charles John Hamson (1905–1987)” in Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford 2004).

¹⁰ P.S. Atiyah, Accidents, Compensation and the Law (London 1970), 9th ed., by P. Cane and J. Goudkamp (Cambridge 2018).

¹¹ G. Calabresi, The Cost of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis (New Haven 1970).

¹² T.G. Ison, The Forensic Lottery: A Critique of Tort Liability as a System of Personal Injury Compensation (London 1967).

¹³ Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury (1978) Cmnd. 7504; D.K. Allen et al., Accident Compensation After Pearson (London 1978).

¹⁴ G. Williams and B.A. Hepple, Foundations of the Law of Tort (London 1976).

¹⁵ B.A. Hepple and M.H. Matthews, Tort: Cases and Materials (London 1974).

¹⁶ T. Weir, A Casebook on Tort (1st ed., London 1967; 2nd ed., London 1970; 3rd ed., London 1974).

¹⁷ P.H. Winfield, Tort, 9th ed. by J.A. Jolowicz, T. Ellis Lewis and D.M. Harris (London 1971). From the 10th edition in 1975, the work is now known as Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort.

¹⁸ J.A. Jolowicz, “Liability for Accidents” [1968] C.L.J. 50.

¹⁹ Rookes v Barnard [1964] A.C. 1129; later also Cassell & Co. Ltd. v Broome [1972] A.C. 1027.

²⁰ [1968] C.L.J. 60.

²¹ Since 2016, this is numbered Article 1242 of the Civil Code, but for the convenience of linking this article to the original articles, I will refer to it as “Article 1384” and the fault provision as “Article 1382” (now Article 1240).

²² Cass., ch. réunies, 13 February 1930, Jand'heur, S. 1930.1.121 rapp. Le Marc'hadour, concl. Matter, note Esmein, D.P. 1930.1.57, note Ripert.

²³ Loi n^o 58-208 of 27 February 1958 and Road Traffic Act 1930, s. 35.

²⁴ A. Tunc, La sécurité routière: esquisse d'une loi sur les accidents de circulation (Paris 1966), explained in English in A. Tunc, “Traffic Accident Compensation in France: The Present Law and a Controversial Proposal” (1966) 79 Harv.L.Rev. 1409.

²⁵ Tunc, “Traffic Accident Compensation in France”, 1412.

²⁶ Ibid., at 1413.

²⁷ Ibid., at 1416.

²⁸ M. Picard, “Pour une loi sur les Accidents d'Automobile” (1931) 2 Revue Générale des Assurances Terrestres 5, 489.

²⁹ See especially R.E. Keeton and J. O'Connell, Basic Protection for the Traffic Victim: A Blueprint for Reforming Automobile Insurance (Boston 1965).

³⁰ Tunc, “Traffic Accident Compensation in France”, 1426–29.

³¹ See J. Bell and D. Ibbetson, European Legal Development: The Case of Tort (Cambridge 2012), 112.

³² See J.-L. Halpérin, “French Doctrinal Writing” in N. Jansen (ed.), The Making of Legal Doctrine (Cambridge 2010), 73, 88–90.

³³ B. Starck, Essai d'une théorie générale de la responsabilité en sa double fonction de garantie et peine privée (Paris 1947). His major work was B. Starck, Droit civil: La responsabilité civile, vol. 1, (Paris 1973). For a short summary and commentary see A. Tunc, “A Little Noticed Theory in the Law of Tort: Boris Starck's Theory of Guaranty” (1973) 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 618.

³⁴ Tunc, “A Little Noticed Theory in the Law of Tort”, 625.

³⁵ G. Viney, Le déclin de la responsabilité individuelle (Paris 1965), preface by A. Tunc. The preface is reprinted in A. Tunc, Jalons: Dits et écrits d'André Tunc (Paris 1991), 149.

³⁶ J.-S. Borghetti, “The Culture of Tort Law in France” [2012] Journal of European Tort Law 158, 174.

³⁷ Bell and Ibbetson, European Legal Development, 60–62.

³⁸ Jean Domat, Les loix civiles dans leur ordre naturel, vol. I (Paris 1689), title 7.8. Domat was the first noteworthy author to use the term “fault”.

³⁹ For example, see Bell and Ibbetson, European Legal Development, 86, on medical liability in the 1830s.

⁴⁰ Ibid., at 89–92.

⁴¹ Ibid., at 95–98.

⁴² See Halpérin, “French Doctrinal Writing”, 85–90.

⁴³ M. Planiol, “Etudes sur la responsabilité civile” (1905) Revue critique de législation et de la jurisprudence, 277.

⁴⁴ H. Mazeaud and L. Mazeaud, Traité théorique et pratique de la responsabilité civile, délictuelle et contractuelle, 1st ed., vol. I (Paris 1931), 78.

⁴⁵ Halpérin, “French Doctrinal Writing”, 90–92.

⁴⁶ Mazeaud and Mazeaud, Traité théorique, 408–17.

⁴⁷ Tunc, “Tort Law and the Moral Law”, 252.

⁴⁸ [1951] A.C. 850.

⁴⁹ The term “bon père de famille” was replaced by “reasonable/reasonably” by loi n^o 2014-873, art. 26.

⁵⁰ Cass. 2e civ., 1 December 1965, Juris-Classeur Periodique 1966.II.14567. See also Rodière, Rev.trim.dr.civ. 1966, 297–98; A. Tunc, “L'enfant et la balle: Réflexions sur la responsabilité civile et l'assurance”, Juris-Classeur Periodique 1966.I.1893, reprinted in Tunc, Jalons, 169.

⁵¹ Tunc, “Tort Law and the Moral Law”, 254.

⁵² Introduced by loi n^o 68-5 of 3 January 1968, now found in Article 414-3 of the Civil Code: see Tunc, “Tort Law and the Moral Law”, 251.

⁵³ Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 Q.B. 691, which Tunc cites in Tunc, “Tort Law and the Moral Law”, 251, note 12.

⁵⁴ Tunc, “Tort Law and the Moral Law”, 255.

⁵⁵ Ibid.

⁵⁶ Ibid., at 255–56.

⁵⁷ Cass., ch. réunies, 13 February 1930, Jand'heur, rapp. Le Marc'hadour, concl. Matter, S. 1930.1.121 note Esmein, D.P. 1930.1.57 note Ripert; A. Guégin-Lécuyer, “The Development of Traffic Liability in France” in W. Ernst (ed.), The Development of Traffic Liability (Cambridge 2010), 50, 51.

⁵⁸ Tunc, “Tort Law and the Moral Law”, 256.

⁵⁹ Ibid., at 257.

⁶⁰ Ibid., at 259.

⁶¹ CE 21 June 1895, Cames, n^o 82490, S. 1897.3.33 note Hauriou; Cass. civ. 16 June 1896, Oriolle, Guissez et Cousin c Teffaine, D.P.1897.1.433 note Saleilles; Y. Salmon, “Technological Change and the Development of Liability for Fault in France” in M. Martín-Casals (ed.), The Development of Liability for Technological Change (Cambridge 2010), 89, 108–13.

⁶² Cass. civ. 29 July 1924, S. 1924.1.321 note P. Esmein.

⁶³ Cass.civ. 21 November 1911, Cie générale transatlantique c Zbidi Hamida ben Mahmoud, D.P. 1913.1.249. Cf. in England where the passenger has to show negligence and certainly cannot count on being carried safe or sound or to destination: Easson v L.N.E.R. [1944] 2 K.B. 421.

⁶⁴ Hamson, “The Moral Law and Professor Tunc”, 54.

⁶⁵ Ibid.

⁶⁶ Rylands v Fletcher (1866) L.R. 1 Ex. 265 and (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330. Read v J. Lyons & Co. Ltd. [1947] A.C. 156. For a contemporary analysis, see R. Chambers, “The Law of Nuisance and the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher” (1978) D.Phil. Oxford.

⁶⁷ CE 28 March 1919, Regnault-Deroziers, n^o 62273, Leb. 329; S. 1918-1919.3.25 note Hauriou.

⁶⁸ Tunc, “Accident Victim Compensation and the Moral Law”, 242–43.

⁶⁹ Compare TC 29 February 1908, Feutry n^o 00624,D. 1908.3.349 concl. Teissier (fault in supervision of an inmate of a psychiatric hospital) and CE Sect. 3 February 1956, Thouzellier, Leb. 49 (no-fault equality before public burdens where borstal boys escaped and burgled the claimant's house): see C.J. Hamson, “Escaping Borstal Boys” [1969] C.L.J. 273.

⁷⁰ [1973] C.L.J. 244, 244.

⁷¹ Ibid. See also Hamson, “The Moral Law and Professor Tunc”, 53.

⁷² Borghetti, “The Culture of Tort Law in France”, 174. Borghetti identifies, appropriately, the work of Saleilles and Josserand as reflecting this trend. These were the two major founders of French no-fault liability under Article 1384, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code.

⁷³ Ibid., especially note 51.

⁷⁴ F. Gény, Méthode de l'interprétation, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Paris 1919), 207–22. The first edition was in 1899: J. Bell, Policy Arguments in Judicial Decisions (Oxford 1983), 226–27.

⁷⁵ Borghetti, “The Culture of Tort Law in France”, 173–74.

⁷⁶ J. Bell, Judiciaries in Europe (Cambridge 2005), 62–63.

⁷⁷ G. Ripert, La règle morale dans les obligations civiles, 4th ed. (Paris 1949).

⁷⁸ R. Savatier, Comment repenser la conception actuelle de la responsabilité civile (Paris 1966).

⁷⁹ L. de Naurois, “Juristes et Moralistes en Présence des Obligations Interpersonnelles de Justice” (1963) Nouvelle Revue Théologique 598. Tunc was, to my knowledge, a regular frequenter of events at the Institut Catholique in Paris, as was his wife.

⁸⁰ A. Tunc, “A Little-Known Theory” (1973) 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 618.

⁸¹ Ibid., at 622, note 16.

⁸² Naurois, “Juristes et Moralistes”, 604–05.

⁸³ Ibid., at 611–12.

⁸⁴ Ibid., at 614.

⁸⁵ Ibid., at 615.

⁸⁶ St. Alphonsus de Liguori and C.J. Warren (translator), “The School of Christian Perfection”, available at https://archive.org/details/TheSchoolOfChristianPerfectionBySaintAlphonsusDeLiguori/page/n1/mode/2up (last accessed 11 June 2021).

⁸⁷ See Populorum Progressio (Vatican 1967), paragraphs 47, 48. M.P. Hornsby-Smith, An Introduction to Catholic Social Thought (Cambridge 2006), 81–83.

⁸⁸ Tunc, “Accident Victim Compensation and the Moral Law”, 243–44.

⁸⁹ This principle was not formally recognised as legally binding until 1991: CC decision 91-291 DC of 6 May 1991, Dotation de solidarité urbaine, Rec. 40.

⁹⁰ G. Ripert, Les forces créatrices du droit (Paris 1955), 164–65.

⁹¹ L. Duguit, Traité de droit constitutionnel, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Paris 1921).

⁹² Ibid., at 20–24.

⁹³ Ibid., at 46–48

⁹⁴ Private conversations with Tunc confirmed that he was concerned about the duties of individuals arising out of solidarity with each other.

⁹⁵ Tunc, “Tort Law and the Moral Law”, 255; Tunc, “Accident Victim Compensation and the Moral Law”, 243.

⁹⁶ Hamson, “The Moral Law and Professor Tunc”, 53–54, 244.

⁹⁷ Cass. 2 civ. 21 July 1982, n^o 81-12850, D. 1982, 449 concl. Charbonnier, note Larroumet; J. Bell, S. Boyron and S. Whittaker, Principles of French Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2008), 392–93. See also J.-L. Aubert, “L'arrêt Desmares, une provocation … à d'autres réformes” (1983) Recueil Dalloz, chron. 1.

⁹⁸ Cass. 2 civ. 15 November 1984, n^o 83-15081, D. 1985, 20 concl. Charbonnier.

⁹⁹ See A. Tunc, “‘It Is Wise Not to Take the Civil Codes Too Seriously’: Traffic Accident Compensation in France” in P. Wallington and R.M. Merkin, (eds.) Essays in Memory of Professor F.H. Lawson (London 1986), 71, 79.

¹⁰⁰ Guégin-Lécuyer, “The Development of Traffic Liability in France”, 67–69; Bell, Boyron and Whittaker, Principles of French Law, 400–03. Also R. Redmond-Cooper, “The Relevance of Fault in Determining Liability for Road Accidents: The French Experience” (1989) 38 I.C.L.Q. 502. One of the major reasons why the insurance companies were more amenable to the Projet Tunc in 1985 was that road accident numbers had declined significantly since hitting a peak in 1970: see Bell and Ibbetson, European Legal Development, 112–13, especially note 5.

¹⁰¹ See Bell, Boyron and Whittaker, Principles of French Law, 394.

¹⁰² See Borghetti and Whittaker, French Civil Liability in Comparative Perspective, Appendix, 608ff.

¹⁰³ Above note 50 and associated text.

¹⁰⁴ Ass.plén., 9 May 1984, n^os 79-16612, 80-93081, 80-93481, 80-14994, D. 1984, 525 concl. Cabannes, note Chabas.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid., case 4, n^o 80-93481.

¹⁰⁶ Then Article 489-2 of the Civil Code, now Article 414-3.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid., case 2 n^o 79-16612 and case 3.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., case 3, Gabillet, n^o 80-14994.

¹⁰⁹ Cass. 2 civ., 19 February 1997, n^o 94-21111, D. 1997, 265 note Jourdain.

¹¹⁰ Ass. plén. 13 Dec. 2002, n^o 00-13787, D. 2003.231 note Jourdain.

¹¹¹ My translation. D. 1984, 525 concl. Cabannes. On insurance costs, see B. Häcker, “Fait d'autrui in Comparative Perspective” in Borghetti and Whittaker (eds.), French Civil Liability.

¹¹² Ass. plén. 29 March 1991, Association des Centres Éducatifs du Limousin c Blieck, n^o 89-15231, D. 1991, 324 note Larroumet, J.C.P. 1991.II.21673 concl. Dottenville; Bell, Boyron and Whittaker, Principles of French Law, 397. Previously, the state had been liable without proof of fault for the acts of adults without mental capacity: CE Sect. 3 February 1956, Thouzellier, D. 1956.596 note Auby. The policy on “care in the community” meant that mentally handicapped persons were no longer kept in state institutions, but they were to be cared for in the wider community often by private associations, as in the Blieck case.

¹¹³ Cass. 2 civ. 25 February 1998, Eicher c Thierry, n^o 97-50002, D. 1998, 315 note Kessous.

¹¹⁴ Cass. crim. 28 March 2000, n^o 99-84075.

¹¹⁵ Ass.plén, 29 June 2007, n^o 06-18141, D. 2007, 2408 note François.

¹¹⁶ See the comments of Jourdain in the Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 2007, 782. But note loi n^o 84-610 of 16 July 1984 imposed on sporting clubs the obligation to insure for harm caused to or by their players (now art. L321-1 of the Sporting Code).

¹¹⁷ See Borghetti and Whittaker, French Civil Liability in Comparative Perspective, Appendix.

¹¹⁸ Proposed Article 1247: “A physical or legal person charged by judicial or administrative decision with organising and controlling an adult's way of life on a permanent basis is liable strictly for the action of such an adult placed under their supervision.” Proposed Article 1248: “Other persons who take on by contract, and by way of their business or profession, a task of supervision of another person or the organisation and control of the activity of another person, is liable for the action of the physical person supervised unless they show that they did not commit any fault.” Article 1245 para. 1 sets out that liability for others occurs “in the cases and on the terms laid down in articles 1246 to 1249”, thus restricting their scope to being a set of rules.

¹¹⁹ Proposed Article 1246: “The following are liable strictly for the action of a minor:

- his parents, to the extent to which they exercise parental authority;

- his guardian or guardians, to the extent to which they are charged with care of the minor's person;

- a physical or legal person charged by judicial or administrative decision with organising and controlling the minor's way of life on a permanent basis. In these circumstances, the parents’ liability of such a minor cannot be engaged.”

¹²⁰ See M. Durgué, “The Definition of Civil Fault” in Borghetti and Whittaker (eds.), French Civil Liability in Comparative Perspective, ch. 5; J.-S. Borghetti, “The Definition of la faute in the Avant-projet de réforme’, in J. Cartwright, S. Vogenauer and S. Whittaker (eds.), Reforming the French Law of Obligations (Oxford 2009), 271.

¹²¹ The laws of 4 March 2002 and 30 December 2002, now Title IV of Book 1 of the legislative part of the Code de la santé publique. For explanation see S. Taylor, “The Development of Medical Liability and Accident Compensation in France” in E. Hondius, The Development of Medical Liability (Cambridge 2010), 70, 73, 93–101; Bell, Boyron and Whittaker, French Private Law, 408–10.

¹²² Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury (1978) Cmnd. 7504; Allen et al., Accident Compensation After Pearson. See P. Cane and J. Goudkamp, Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and the Law, 9th ed. (Cambridge 2018), 14–15, 437ff.

¹²³ Cane and Goudkamp, Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and the Law, 439–41.

¹²⁴ Ibid., at 438.

¹²⁵ Tunc, “Tort Law and the Moral Law”, 251.

¹²⁶ C. McIvor, Third Party Liability in Tort (Oxford 2006), 24–35.

¹²⁷ See Dunnage v Randall [2016] Q.B. 639. Goudkamp has argued in favour of a defence of insanity in tort for those who are mentally incapable: J. Goudkamp, “Insanity as a Tort Defence” (2011) 31 O.J.L.S. 727.

¹²⁸ Cane and Goudkamp, Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and the Law, 171.

¹²⁹ Ibid., at 175.

¹³⁰ See especially Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants (“Christian Brothers”) [2012] UKSC 56, [2013] 2 A.C. 1; Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60, [2018] A.C. 355. The limited extent of this liability was shown in Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13, where an employer was not held liable for the acts of an independent doctor to whom its employees were sent for medical examinations.

¹³¹ Chief Medical Officer, Making Amends: A Consultation Paper Setting Out Proposals for Reforming the Approach to Clinical Negligence in the NHS (London 2003); see W. Swain, “The Development of Medical Liability in England and Wales” in Hondius (ed.), The Development of Medical Liability, 51–52.

¹³² The House of Lords held that personal injuries cannot be recovered in a nuisance action: Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd. [1997] A.C. 655, but they are still recoverable in public nuisance: Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby B.C. [2009] Q.B. 335.

¹³³ R. Stevens, Tort and Rights (Oxford 2007), ch. 2.

¹³⁴ J. Gardner, Tort and Wrongs (Oxford 2019), 156–57.

¹³⁵ Ibid., at 166–68; R. Demogue, Traité des obligations en général (Paris 1925), vol. 5, n° 1237 and vol. 6, 1932, n° 599.

¹³⁶ Gardner, Tort and Wrongs, esp. 223–25.

¹³⁷ T. Honoré, “Responsibility and Luck: the Moral Basis of Strict Liability” (1988) 103 L.Q.R. 530.

¹³⁸ E.g. ibid., at 544–45.

¹³⁹ Perry, S.R., “Risk, Harm and Responsibility” in Owen, D.G. (ed.), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law (Oxford 1995), 321Google Scholar, 345, emphasis.

¹⁴⁰ See Tunc, “Accident Victim Compensation and the Moral Law”, 242–43.

¹⁴¹ See Goudkamp, J. and Murphy, J., “The Failure of Universal Theories of Tort Law” (2015) 21 Legal Theory 47Google Scholar.

¹⁴² I am grateful to Paula Giliker for pointing out an exception in Laski, H. J., “The Basis of Vicarious Liability” (1916) 26 Yale Law Journal 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 121. His words echo Durkheim, and he relies heavily on French literature in the article.

¹⁴³ Cane and Goudkamp, Atiyah's Accidents, Compensation and the Law, 440.

¹⁴⁴ See Bell and Ibbetson, European Legal Development, 179–83.

¹⁴⁵ Häcker, “Fait d'autrui in Comparative Perspective”, 221.

¹⁴⁶ Personal research on French insurance websites.